What potential Movie Blockbuster are you looking forward to?-Summer 2004 Edition

[Big Boy Laroux]

or that could just have been an excuse. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[Dooby]

That is a nice article murph, but I could post a Peanuts cartoon and it would be equally relevant to your argument. Pick a number between 1 and 10 and that is the number of negative early reviews for the Alamo that I will post. Honestly, pick a number. How about 3 (there are lots more)?

THE ALAMO to be held longer than the usual 13 days... coming April 2004
Hey folks, Harry here... One of my most reliable sources tells me that Disney has picked up THE ALAMO and moved it from the Christmas release that had long been planned and is now movie the film to sometime in April of 2004. While the source did not specify the reasons behind the move, I'm willing to bet it has quite a bit to do with the less than enthusiastic response it has been getting from Test Screenings. The film has been cited as being overlong and emotionally uninvolving. We can only hope that this extended release date will afford it time to find the better, shorter, film within. This also will officially mean that Billy Bob Thornton won't be a contender for the Supporting Actor Oscar as some have theorized. More as the details come...

Once again, the ALAMO falls... Let's hope it gets better...
Hey folks, Harry here... yeah, this was what I was afraid of. By trying to tell all sides of the stories, you're never given a reason to feel for one side over the other. To feel for any of the characters lost, or cheer for any of the triumphs. Of course, that's the sacrifice you make when you try to tell the story of TEXAS and not the story of the ALAMO. Here ya go...
Hey Harry,

Long time reader, but this is the first time I've ever had anything related to a scoop. Well more of a review. I was recently part of a test screening for the Alamo in Pasadena. I haven't seen any reviews of it and was told by the suits that we were one of the first audiences to see it. To preface this they did say that it was still somewhat rough (color correction and all...) but pretty much done. Dunno if this is the right place to send it, hell I don't know if you care, either way here is a quick review....

To start this movie is long....noticeably long. It's roughly 2 hours and 45 minutes. I generally don't mind long movies, but this one stuck out as long. I won't ruin any of the movie but suffice to say this film throws you into the Alamo pretty quick. Not a lot of exposition but what is there is a bit confusing even for one like myself who is moderately versed in Alamo lore. And then the waiting begins.....lots of waiting....expostion.... lots of waiting. We all know what is coming. We can feel it. We all KNOW the ending here.

The forced character building is just that - forced. We have Jim "Doc Holliday" Bowie, William Barret Travis, Sam Houston, and of course Davey Crockett. All of the parts are played rather well, especially Dennis Quad as Houston. But because of the amount of main characters all are a bit thin and can quickly be reduced to stereotypes or cliches. Jim Bowie was a lot like Doc Holliday from Tombstone, except less drunk. Travis was the typical young rookie officer forced to be a hero. In an attempt to "play down" Crockett I fear they almost ruined him .They wished to take away the over the top image of Crockett and add "realism". In taking him down a few steps they almsot break his legs in the process, he appeared afraid several times and really out of place at the Alamo. However I say almost ruined, because of two scenes. One in which Crockett retells a grisly unheroic tale and his scene with Santa Anna towards the end. These two scenes really salvaged the ch! aracter. Again the best character is Sam Houston. He had quite a bit of depth, ranging from drunken failure to heroic general, all of which is pulled off well. If he ahd been the focus of the film the film would have been better off for it.

But I digress we know what we all came to see - the battle for the Alamo. It was decently shot but if anyone has seen a little movie called "Glory" than they have already seen "The Alamo". You got a bunch faceless guys dying at a fort. Not once did I feel anything for anyone that died at the Alamo. Hell, I CRIED at "Glory". This - Nothing.

I won't even go into the lack of historical accuracy (where are the conscripts? Indians? Goliad? How Santa Anna was really captured?...)

But the fatal flaw of this film was something small.....well two small things. They had a young child on both sides : One Tejano, one Texan. At the final batle they "coincidently" meet....well you can see what is coming.....we are forced to watch these kids periodically show up in the movie and the payoff is horribly cliched and melodramatic. The addition of the teenage soldiers is forced and obvious. We're supposed to see two soldiers, "brothers" if you will, fighting against each other. This waste of time and melodrama brings the movie down and slows it down quite a bit. If these scenes were removed, you would have a good film. Not great but good. If they are left in what you have is a decent film which is relatively entertaining for those who enjoy a war movie - ultimately lacking in depth but overflowing with screen time.

This is my first review (if it isn't painfully obvious....) so use it if you like and if you don't well that's fine too. Cry Havok.... - Liquid Havok

Sounds like Sir Whoopee won't be remembering this ALAMO...
Hey folks, Harry here... It's sad... this review is exactly what I thought of the script. A film that wants to be a mini-series, but instead became a movie.... and as a result flounders about on screen. Instead of focusing on the men in the walls of the Alamo and the battles within them and the battle they faced, they are attempted to make a film that didn't offend anyone and that played all sides... Exactly like PEARL HARBOR, but apparently - to results that are perhaps a bit harsher. This review isn't pretty, and let's hope that with editing and score, the film finds a soul and a pace... But this review is really brutal...
Hey guys,

I'm a long-time reader, first-time poster. I love the site and your book! Anyways, I just got back from a test screening for Touchstone's 'The Alamo' in Orange, California. The guy who introduced the film said that we were the first audience in the world to see the film. He also said that it wasn't a finished (score not in place, color matching incomplete) print. I'll try to keep this as spoiler-free as possible. Here begins my review.

I really wanted to like this film. I really did. When I found out that Ron Howard wanted to make an Alamo film with Russell Crowe, I was admittedly excited. When that fell through, I kind of forgot about the project. Then the trailer came out and... I was underwhlemed. It really was not very impressive. Many of the shots seemed either lazy or overly artfull. Oh well, I kept my mind open, and I was disappointed.

The film opens with a series of long, sweeping shots featuring dead bodies (some quite gory for a PG-13 film). It then cuts to an hour's (give or take) worth of pointless fluff. Literally, it serves no purpose to the film. This section of the film should be cut down by a half hour or more. It's just pointless story arcs and melodramatic cut-aways (which aptly describes most of the film). Two of my friends literally fell asleep during this section of the film. It was really sad. It's not until the first cannon fires that the film gets interesting (once again, about an hour into the film).

Now, the battle sequences are generally well done with some plain poor choices. Good fight choreography and some amazing sound design help this scene work. These cannons fire with more auditory force than you would ever imagine. It literally floors you into your seat. This is true of many of the sound effects in the film. The muskets, horses, and cannons are all properly loud and wonderfully edited. The sound is visceral and cutting, some of the best work I've heard all year. I can't really comment on the score, as it was not yet in place (they used some 'Road to Perdition' in there, which completely didn't fit). The fights are broken up by some overly "arty" shots. The cinematography throughout the movie is boring, to say the least. It seems like the cinematographer noticed this and threw in some shots that look nice but completely out of place (the sillouettes? come on!). The film also c! uts away to completely unrelated shots, such as a random woman clutching her child and crying. These cutaways didn't aid the sequence in any way and were really just annoying. Finally, there's this parrelel story about a reluctant, young Mexican soldier that's just distracting and overly dramatic. There's even a scene where this soldier meets a young American soldier and I just wanted to puke. It steals from 'All Quiet On the Western Front' so much that it was laughable.

How about the performances? Jason Patric (as James Bowie) and Patrick Wilson (as Colonel Travis) are servicable. They do their roles but really don't bring any punch or effort at all. Dennis Quaid (as Sam Houston) is really just pathetic. It sucks, because he's a fantastic actor. He just phones in his character here, and it's a boring phone call. I never felt that any army would follow this man. I really just wanted him to get off the screen. An actor who impressed me was Jordi Molla, a relative unknown. I think he displays an impressive screen presence and I was always glad to see him on screen. However, the film's saving grace in Billy Bob Thornton as Davy Crockett. He is the only actor in the film who brings any substance to his role. He portrays an aging Crockett who is shadowed by his own legend. He's truly kind of a simple, cowardly man who is forced to live up to people's perception of him. He accepts his heroic position, but acknowledges that it is not really him. He understands that men need him to be DAVY CROCKETT, not just plain, old David Crockett. Thornton displays this with charm and subtlety. He is also the film's sole comedic relief, which is appreciated. He is sorely missed when he is not on screen. I will finally say that I loved the final battle sequence. It was quick and gruesome. I was impressed by this sequence, one of the only ones that did impress me in the entire thing.

I have more to say about this but can't, for the sake of spoilers. Some of them involve the deaths of certain characters, so I must digress. I was extremely disappointed with this film. Without the wonderful sound design or the fabulous Billy Bob Thornton, this film would be a complete throwaway. It's a badly directed, shot, and edited mess. My only hope is that this is an extremely rough cut, and a better, shorter version will magically appear, but, somehow I doubt it. It feels like a 2 hour movie crammed into three. It's sad, really, because I saw a better film trying to break out, but couldn't. Oh well. Disappointing. Very disappointing.

If this gets posted, I am one fifth of the Magnificent Five and you can call me Sir Whoopee.

[Dooby]

Now for the record, there is at least one more recent review that says they fixed a lot of the above-mentioned problems.

But the truth is that test audiences thought it was not very good.

[Murphy3]

TITANIC

by David Sisler

It was the fastest three hours I think I have ever spent. I never looked at my watch.

Before Titanic was released last year, the talk from Hollywood was that the movie about the world's best-known disaster was a cinematic disaster. The price of production kept going up and up, with no end in sight. So expensive was the movie becoming that in a move rarely made in Tinsel Town, Paramount invested $65 million in the film, and Twentieth Century Fox had to pay that amount, plus pick up the tab when Titanic went at least $80 million over its $120 million budget.

The original release date was pushed back by some six months, while theater owners complained that the film's length would allow only two-thirds of the normal screenings.

All that, like the original White Star liner, is now history. In its initial release, and in only thirteen weeks, the movie passed the domestic box-office record of $461 million set by Star Wars (and Star Wars went through five re-releases to make that much money). With worldwide receipts in excess of $1.1 billion, analysts now expect Titanic to make a profit of more than $400 million.

When the Royal Mail Steamship Titanic sailed from the docks in Southampton on April 10, 1912, she was the largest moving object ever made by man. Five days later two-thirds of her passengers and crew would die when the great ship struck an iceberg and sank in the freezing waters of the North Atlantic. Within three hours the ship filled with 34,000 tons of water and plunged 2.5 miles to the ocean floor.

The initial theory for the sinking of the unsinkable ship was that the iceberg tore a 300 foot gash in the vessel's side. The designers believed that the ship could still float if five of the watertight compartments were opened to the sea. The ship sank, the theory goes, because six compartments were ripped open.

Following the discovery of Titanic in 1985 by oceanographer Robert Ballard, a theory was advanced which turned up, what appeared to be, a weakness in the hull plates. Some of the inch-thick steel plates seemed to have properties that made them relatively brittle in cold water. Subsequent analysis, though, suggested that 2,000 steel plates used in the hull varied in quality.

Tim Foecke believes he now knows the truth and it was nothing so large as an iceberg, or a failed hull plate — it was the failure of her rivets that doomed Titanic. The total area open to the sea may have been no larger than a closet door.

Foecke is an expert in fracture mechanics and a student of structural failures in World War II Liberty ships at the federal government's National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Last September he released a report which states that the "microstructure" of the rivets, unknown to the turn-of-the-century Ulster shipbuilders, could be a key to the calamity.

During testing, one of the hull rivets was sliced down the middle with a diamond-tipped saw, and studied under a special microscope called an optical metallograph. The metallograph enabled Foecke to study the pattern of slag streaks running the length of the rivet and to measure the levels of slag.

Wrought iron must have some slag — a byproduct in the iron-making process, usually about 2 percent — to give it strength, he said. But too much makes it weak. The Titanic rivet, Foecke found, had a dangerously high slag content of about 9 percent.

In addition, the streaks of slag, which should run lengthwise along the rivet, showed another serious flaw which weakened the metal. The slag made a 90-degree turn at one end.

"This was really striking, because to have the slag turned around this way, this is a major area of weakness," he said.

Not an iceberg, not faulty hull plates, but something so small as the rivets, may have doomed the maiden voyage of the pride of the White Star Line.

"The little foxes spoil the grapes," the Bible says. Spiritual destruction starts with the small things. One sin here, one sin there and little by little the seeds of destruction are sown. You do not notice it at first, but when pressure comes against your life, its seams are exposed to the elements that would destroy you, and nothing human can be done to stop it.

Rose DeWitt Bukater, the female lead in the movie, played by Kate Winslet, said of Jack Dawson, the man with whom she fell in love, "He saved me. He saved me in every way a person can be saved."

Not quite every way, Rose.

That requires Jesus.

-30-

Published in the Augusta Chronicle 3/21/98

Copyright 1998 by David Sisler. All Rights Reserved.

[Dooby]

Now for the record, there is at least one more recent review that says they fixed a lot of the above-mentioned problems.

But the truth is that test audiences thought it was not very good.

[EricaLubarsky]

Sheesh you guys. You REALLY need a game to watch dont you.

[Murphy3]

The real movie surprises in 1997 proved to be the abundance of unexpected comebacks

BY STEVE RAMOS
You've got to believe in the boat. All the advance talk about James Cameron's Titanic sinking its way into becoming Hollywood's worse movie disaster proved false with the first "cha-ching" of its opening weekend box office. And its $27.6-million opening was just for starters.

Although its lame disaster movie finish might disappoint audiences expecting a modern-day Gone With the Wind, the much-delayed Titanic easily qualifies as one of the greatest movie comebacks in history. It's hard to imagine that, less than six months ago, Hollywood pundits predicted Titanic to be the greatest financial blood-bath since Kevin Costner's Waterworld. And though the final verdict by Hollywood accountants is still out, there's little doubt that Titanic will be anything but a box office dud.

It wasn't just the boat, however, that came back from the dead in 1997. The year overflowed with out-of-favor celebrities, semi-retired actors and worn-out genres that bounced back with critical acclaim and solid ticket sales.

[Murphy3]

Obviously, there were alot of financial issues with the movie. There were rumblings at the time that the movie wouldn't even be finished..that it would just be dropped by the studios. However, I haven't found any articles that mention that just yet and I don't know that there was ever any real truth to that.

But, I do know that there hasn't been one mention of the movie being pushed back to have a better chance at garnering awards.

Dooby, would you like to apologize?

[Murphy3]

As for The Alamo, I fully expect that movie to be a flop.

[Dooby]

Originally posted by: Murphy3
Obviously, there were alot of financial issues with the movie. There were rumblings at the time that the movie wouldn't even be finished..that it would just be dropped by the studios. However, I haven't found any articles that mention that just yet and I don't know that there was ever any real truth to that.

But, I do know that there hasn't been one mention of the movie being pushed back to have a better chance at garnering awards.

Dooby, would you like to apologize?

No. I was just reading the early reviews of Titanic (and all mention potential awards), and all were lauding it (except for Time Magazine's review, which was crap). You are the one that made the comparison to Titanic, which was dumb. But I admit that I can't find an early review of Titanic before late September, because the damn thing really wasn't finished. Alamo was finished and sent back to the drawing board. There is a variety article from September that mentions it as a heavy contender for the oscars but you have to be a subscriber to get it.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: Dooby
Any time a movie is scheduled for a release and is then pushed back for 6 months for "re-tooling", it is a sure sign that the movie sucks.

Brrr. I can remember how bad Wild, Wild, West was. Another film that "re-tooled".

[Murphy3]

I did not compare the movie to Titanic in any aspect other than the fact that they were both pushed back. I did not say that The Alamo would be as successful as Titanic or even that it would be a financial success at all.

However, you went on to say that the Titanic was pushed back because of the awards. I found no evidence that remotely backs up your claim. I said that there was fear that Titanic would be a flop. There was evidence that suggests that the studios wanted to move the movie back to December to avoid the fierce competition.

Please, go back and read what you have written.

[Dooby]

Originally posted by: Murphy3
I did not compare the movie to Titanic in any aspect other than the fact that they were both pushed back. I did not say that The Alamo would be as successful as Titanic or even that it would be a financial success at all.

However, you went on to say that the Titanic was pushed back because of the awards. I found no evidence that remotely backs up your claim. I said that there was fear that Titanic would be a flop. There was evidence that suggests that the studios wanted to move the movie back to December to avoid the fierce competition.

Please, go back and read what you have written.

Unlike most people, I pay attention to what I write. And I stand by it.

You are the one that said they pushed Titanic back because they thought they had a flop on their hands. Which nobody remotely connected to the film or financing it believed.

[Murphy3]

No one remotely mentioned that the movie was pushed back because of the 'awards'. Wasn't that your reasoning? There is at least speculation that the movie was pushed back because of financial reasons.

So, I may not be dead on, but there's definitely more that goes along with my claim than the 'awards' reasoning that you mentioned.

[ocelot_ark]

Originally posted by: Big Boy Laroux
girl next door! porn stars! i bet there's no nudity, though... [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

Oh, there's nudity...tons of nudity!

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

[mary]

I'm headed out to see Ladykillers today. The Coen brothers are pure genius in my book. Expectations are high.

[mary]

Looking for to seeing this one. King Arthur coming out this summer.

Movie Trailer

Cast

Article


Producer: Jerry Bruckheimer(Pirates of the Caribbean, Top Gun, CSI, Bad Boys,
Dangerous Minds, and the list goes on and on and on...)

Arthur Gets Real

Jerry Bruckheimer—who is producing King Arthur, a new movie based on the Arthurian legend—told SCI FI Wire that the film will be very different from, and much darker than, previous cinematic incarnations. "We're doing King Arthur, but not the King Arthur that you're familiar with," Bruckheimer said in an interview while promoting his latest film, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl.

Bruckheimer said the film will in part be based on Le Morte d'Arthur, Sir Thomas Malory's 15th-century romance, which distilled many of the earlier Arthur legends into one narrative and formed the basis of subsequent retellings of the myth. Bruckheimer argued that Malory's story is based on a real figure. "We're taking what Malory researched—that was the real King Arthur, who was a Roman. His name was Arturius," he said. "Rome had conquered the world, and they had their legions in Britain. The British didn't want them there." (In fact, scholars doubt that Arthur existed or argue that, if he did, he was a Celt, a Welshman or a Roman who battled Germanic tribes that overran the British islands in the fifth or sixth centuries.)

In any case, Bruckheimer said his film—directed by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day) and written by David Franzoni (Gladiator)—will carry a "hard R" rating and will concentrate on epic battles, rather than the fantastical elements of the story. "There is [some magic], but it's going to be real." Bruckheimer said. "In other words, the Picts used to paint themselves from head to toe, either blue or green, to blend into the trees, just like the special forces. So you're going to look at the trees, and you're not going to see anything. And all of a sudden, these men are going to come out of the trees. So that's kind of Merlin's magic."

Pirates of the Caribbean star Keira Knightley will play Guinevere in the film. In a separate interview, she told SCI FI Wire that King Arthur is aimed at a mature audience. "I don't think it's going to be a family film," she said. "I think we're just going for reality. So don't think Camelot or Excalibur. Think kind of more Gladiator. So it's going to be fascinating."

[aexchange]

i have no interest in see the alamo.

it strikes me as a piece of floating poo.

but then again, so do most movies that attempt to capitalize on historical events during times of military conflict.

[Max Power]

Scooby-Doo 2 Dominates
Fifth Largest March Opening Ever
March 29, 2004

Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed more than doubled the gross of its nearest competitor, garnering an estimated opening weekend total of $30.7 million; that was the fifth largest March opening ever. Nearly four out of five critics blasted Scooby-Doo 2, but critics have little influence over Scooby's youthful target audience.

Though it dominated this weekend's box office, the sequel earned only about 55% of the $54 million pulled in by the first live action Scooby-Doo feature, but that first film debuted in the more kid-flic friendly month of June in 2002. All things considered, the franchise appears to be in good shape; only an unlikely precipitous drop-off next weekend could prevent a Scooby-Doo 3.

The Coen Brothers' adaptation of the classic Alec Guinness comedy, The Ladykillers came in second place with an estimated $13 million. Mel Gibson's amazing The Passion of the Christ slipped only 36% to an estimated $12.5 million and moved into thirteenth place all time with a total domestic gross of some $315 million.

Last weekend's winner, the remake of the zombie classic Dawn of the Dead, slipped 61% to an estimated $10.3 million, while Kevin Smith's Jersey Girl did well with the young female audience and collected an estimated $8.3 million.

[MavsFanatik33]

Originally posted by: Max Power
Scooby-Doo 2 Dominates
Fifth Largest March Opening Ever....

That just proves that kids dont care how bad a movie sucks....they will always beg their parents to take them...

[Big Boy Laroux]

eternal sunshine. amazing movie. not a blockbuster, but it's a shame great movies like this get beat out by crap like scooby doo 2. but hey, that's life.

[Kid California]

Just Saw HellBoy. It was decent, I liked the humor. What's better than a creature from hell that likes to smoke cigars? Nothing great, just another "save the world" movie.

[Murphy3]

Originally posted by: Big Boy Laroux
eternal sunshine. amazing movie. not a blockbuster, but it's a shame great movies like this get beat out by crap like scooby doo 2. but hey, that's life.

BBL, you couldn't be more right. This movie is freaking awesome. It's a shame that so many people around the country are missing out on this wonderful movie.

[EricaLubarsky]

Today I went to the movies with my friend and her 12 year old sister. We saw Scooby Doo 2 and that was the worst pile of steaming-hot, liquid crap I have ever seen. I think I'll add an entry to the "worst movies ever thread"